PDA

View Full Version : Another beat down from Moronotti


hose
04-26-2004, 06:05 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay26.html

The Sox are not worthy enough for Telander to write about and on the day after the Bears draft the Moron writes an article not on the great dramatic come from behind win , but a personal matter with Reinsy.

Hokiesox
04-26-2004, 07:13 AM
"Guillen asks why local newspapers are providing daily updates on Mark Prior's health status while ignoring Frank Thomas' sore hamstring, failing to grasp that Prior's injuries conceivably could alter baseball history while Big Hurt's hammy was a minor issue."

that does it, I'm sorry I defended him last week. This statement is RIDICULOUS. Good job Hawk for calling him out. Alter baseball history? I suppose it was a foregone conclusion that the Cubs should go to the world series without playing a game.
:chunks

DMarte708
04-26-2004, 07:22 AM
Anybody notice the title of Tony Ginnetti's article in the Sun Times: "Remlinger watch: lefty still week away." Appears to me that some other journalist in the media are taking Ozzie's comments and purposely creating titles like this to agitate him.

Suppose he never should of questioned "holy mother cubdum" (As viva has put it) and its far reaching influence in this town.

gosox41
04-26-2004, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by hose
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay26.html

The Sox are not worthy enough for Telander to write about and on the day after the Bears draft the Moron writes an article not on the great dramatic come from behind win , but a personal matter with Reinsy.

I'm not even going to read this article. It probably rehashes the same old crap, and based on the description you gave it, it's all JR's fault.


Bob

Hokiesox
04-26-2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'm not even going to read this article. It probably rehashes the same old crap, and based on the description you gave it, it's all JR's fault.


Bob

Not quite JR's fault, but it talks about how we should "get over ourselves" and realize the Cubs are supposed to be the only team in town. :angry: :angry:

voodoochile
04-26-2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Hokiesox
"Guillen asks why local newspapers are providing daily updates on Mark Prior's health status while ignoring Frank Thomas' sore hamstring, failing to grasp that Prior's injuries conceivably could alter baseball history while Big Hurt's hammy was a minor issue."

that does it, I'm sorry I defended him last week. This statement is RIDICULOUS. Good job Hawk for calling him out. Alter baseball history? I suppose it was a foregone conclusion that the Cubs should go to the world series without playing a game.


Good Call? You don't suppose, that perhaps, just possibly this might be a direct response to Hawk's comments?

WTG, Sox! ANOTHER PR win for the team... WOOHOO!

Hilarious...

Railsplitter
04-26-2004, 07:47 AM
Anybody have fish that need wrapping? The bottom of birdcage lined?

Railsplitter
04-26-2004, 07:58 AM
Looks like Mariotti is a bit thin skinned.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-26-2004, 08:06 AM
You know what is really funny and sad about watching White Sox management implode over their unfair treatment by the media? As a Sox Fan I'm left feeling like I'm rooting for the Nixon Administration.

:)

SSN721
04-26-2004, 08:46 AM
I'd write more here but I already posted my aingst in another thread for Mariotti. I hate the Cubs like most of us do here, but everytime another article like this comes out, I cant even fathom how much pleasure I would get if the Cubs fell on their ass and completely imploded this year forcing everyone of these pompous ****s to eat their words and explain themselves.

jackbrohamer
04-26-2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Good Call? You don't suppose, that perhaps, just possibly this might be a direct response to Hawk's comments?

Moronotti can't let the sun set on an insult from anyone, every single time Hawk rips on him in the air, expect another screed in the Moron column the next day. Just like when David Wells was here, no comment was unanswered.

The thing about Moronotti that's funny is, even though he is the worst writer in Chicago it seems he NEVER takes a day off

Jerko
04-26-2004, 09:05 AM
I am not defending the Moron, but if we email him every time he says something stupid about the Sox, which is every time he says something about the Sox, he just sits back and laughs. That DOES make us look like whiny, jealous, losers and in his mind that makes him think he is right. Now like it or not, we can bash him here all day with solid, valid, facts, but HE can spew his garbage in a major newspaper. Who do you think will be heard? Now all of us here in the WSI community know what's what, but the more we whine and bitch to and about him, the more negative crap he's gonna write about the team that gets out to the masses. WE ARE MAKING HIS POINT FOR HIM PEOPLE! Just ignore the prick. The only people who believe anything he writes anyway are morons just as big as he is; and who cares what THEY think? Yes, I like the fact that Ozzie pops off every now and then, but when you are on the verge of almost being swept at home vs. the Devil Rays and your biggest DIVISION rival seems to never lose, maybe you should concentrate on your OWN team instead of worrying about Jesus' injury updates.

woodenleg
04-26-2004, 09:17 AM
I agree - don't even bother. I've tried writing perfectly reasonable letters to the papers, responding to this or that inaccurate statement. They never print them - instead they print the most inflammatory letters from Sox fans and the most smug and superior letters from Cub fans.

Face it - they are exacerbating the situation. Just look at how the headlines in one of the papers this weekend mentioned Ozzie's alleged "attack on Cub fans" (he did no such thing - his criticisms were of the media hype surrounding Prior's injury). They like this rivalry - it appears.

If the Sox are so unimportant to the Cubs, their fans, and Chicago in general, then why do they keep bringing us, our 'immature' resentment, and our 'inferiority complex' up?

Looks like some people eat this stuff up, or they wouldn't be putting it in the papers. Get ready for another round of snotty letters attacking the low-class Sox fan 'mentality'.

zach23
04-26-2004, 09:31 AM
The best thing to do is stop reading their paper. Cancel any subscriptions and tell them why you are cancelling.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-26-2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by zach23
The best thing to do is stop reading their paper. Cancel any subscriptions and tell them why you are cancelling.

That's the obvious first step, but it isn't nearly enough.

You want to get their attention? Pick up the Sun-Times and start calling all their advertisers. Tell them how upset you are that they help support a Chicago media institution (the Sun-Times) that is so obviously attempting to throw another Chicago institution (the White Sox) under the wheels of a train.

Note the unobjectivity of the paper's leading sports columnist, his flippant replies to concerns many like you have brought to his attention, and the complete disregard the editor and publisher of the Sun Times have for this issue.

Most of all, note that you're a Chicagoan, and what advertisers like those in the Sun-Times are doing is reprehensible to rip this city apart in an transparent attempt to merely sell a few more rags. You won't support the Sun Times, and you won't support their store/business.

If you have an account (credit card or otherwise) with one of these businesses, tear it up and enclose it with your letter.

Now *that's* effective.

Dadawg_77
04-26-2004, 09:44 AM
:whocares

That is how you get back at Jay and his employers.

zach23
04-26-2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's the obvious first step, but it isn't nearly enough.

You want to get their attention? Pick up the Sun-Times and start calling all their advertisers. Tell them how upset you are that they help support a Chicago media institution (the Sun-Times) that is so obviously attempting to throw another Chicago institution (the White Sox) under the wheels of a train.

Note the unobjectivity of the paper's leading sports columnist, his flippant replies to concerns many like you have brought to his attention, and the complete disregard the editor and publisher of the Sun Times have for this issue.

Most of all, note that you're a Chicagoan, and what advertisers like those in the Sun-Times are doing is reprehensible to rip this city apart in an transparent attempt to merely sell a few more rags. You won't support the Sun Times, and you won't support their store/business.

If you have an account (credit card or otherwise) with one of these businesses, tear it up and enclose it with your letter.

Now *that's* effective.

I completely agree.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
You know what is really funny and sad about watching White Sox management implode over their unfair treatment by the media? As a Sox Fan I'm left feeling like I'm rooting for the Nixon Administration.

:)

This should be the "Post of the Month". Here we are, off to a fine start, winning some come from behind games in an exciting fashion and what happens? Organizational guys start moaning about the media, and taking shots at Cubs fans. Why? Just keep winning games, stay in the race and things will be fine. Instead they sometimes seem to go out of their way to take shots at their coverage.

I guarantee you that you are not going to whine or intimidate your way into better coverage.

Grobber33
04-26-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
This should be the "Post of the Month". Here we are, off to a fine start, winning some come from behind games in an exciting fashion and what happens? Organizational guys start moaning about the media, and taking shots at Cubs fans. Why? Just keep winning games, stay in the race and things will be fine. Instead they sometimes seem to go out of their way to take shots at their coverage.

I guarantee you that you are not going to whine or intimidate your way into better coverage.

You are so correct. That's not my oppinion,but it's how the Print media will react. The thing the Sox must do(which nobody here can control)is to win games and let nature take it's course. The Writers(both Cub & Sox beat writers)are tired of the nyah nyah stuff. Other than on this site,or unless you call a sports talk radio show,this wont get that much coverage.

BTW, A Sox executive told me late Sunday that the reason Frank did'nt get a 'Frank watch' was because he was'nt on the DL,and has'nt been out since the start of Spring Training. Had he been,there would have been plenty of coverage of Frank's injury. Prior has been out since last Oct. Frank is already back in the lineup and has homered twice since returning,and almost went to the mound Saturday when dusted. Valentin and Grudzielanek(both on DL) do not command the attention of Prior or Thomas.So that's a major reason for the disparity. BUT Ozzie took some heat off his players with his comment.I know what he was doing,and he's likely laughing privately. He's no dummy.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 10:54 AM
If Guillen's comments were strategically made to "take the heat off of players" - then so be it and congratulations to Guillen (although I don't see the connection). Still and all however, unless it is known exactly why Guillen made those comments - as opposed to insiders only being privvy - he looks kind of odd to the average reader doesn't he?

Irishsox1
04-26-2004, 11:03 AM
The White Sox are taking on the Media and if you take on the media, you better bring a lot of ink and a lot of paper. This could get real ugly very fast.

Kilroy
04-26-2004, 11:16 AM
From Today's Moron piece:

I can honestly declare, that as one of the city's few sporting independents, that the Cubs deserve all the attention they're getting.

Ok, Sox fans will not argue the attention the Cubs are getting, but how the hell can Marriotti, in all seriousness, declare himself a one of Chicago's sporting independents?

He must be out of his ****ing mind, or think that we've lost ours.

Hey, ********, you can't write countless columns that are negative against the Sox, including many things that aren't even true, AND, have repeated public airings of your personal dislike for the White Sox owner, while at the same time, spending all your time covering the other Chicago team on your knees paying them tribute (in whatever way you readers choose to imagine), AND THEN claim that you are a neutral in this town when it comes to the Sox and the Cubs.

Lip Man 1
04-26-2004, 11:19 AM
Gang:

I understand where a lot of you are coming from OK... but I think some are missing the point.

You can get angry and upset over what the media does or does not do with the Sox however , don't you think the real questions should be why the franchise has been allowed to get to this position (in regards to media coverage) in the first place?

Who's responsible for that ? And it's not the media is it. The media didn't 'beat down' the franchise with goofy ideas like SportrsVision, threatening to move, the 94 labor impass and the White Flag Trade did it?

Here's a portion of Phil Rogers interview with WSI:

"The biggest problem has been from a communication area. The Sox donít appreciate how many breaks the fans will give them if they were open about things. They have a "bunker mentality," that everyone is against them. Iíll give you an example. During the labor situation, any reporter could call any day, and speak with the Commissioner or his management team about what was going on, how things were developing and so on. That was a big change from the past and I think that caused a groundswell of support for the owners side.

The White Sox donít return calls. With them itís always the number of fans that go to Wrigley Field against the number of fans that go to Comiskey Park. Itís an inferiority complex and they blame the media. When I did a column in the Spring evaluating Chicago ownership on both sides of town, I found out that in the past, the team that drew the best usually was winning the most. Itís not that way anymore."

ML: Any thoughts on what the Sox have to do to reconnect with the fans, many of whom refuse to return to the ballpark because of events over the past twenty years?

PR: "Short of winning a World Series, nothing short of an ownership change is going to do that. When I first got here and heard all the anti-owner talk, I didnít pay any attention to it. Iíve heard that everywhere. Itís always easy to blame the owner. I didnít understand the depth of feelings that Sox fans have in this issue. The Reinsdorf group, for whatever reason or reasons, is very unpopular. The only way to revitalize the franchise is to get new ownership."

Now assuming this is at least partially true (i.e. the Sox relationship with the Chicago media) and I think it is, then can you blame the media for being 'anti-Sox?'

Should they be above this pettiness...you bet, but they are human beings with human foibles. Perhaps if the Sox organization treated them better and actually helped them do their jobs they might get better treatment.

We know this, as long as the Sox think the media is their 'enemy' we know what's going to happen don't we?

Why is it so beneath the Sox dignity to kiss the media's ass sometimes? That's the way of the sports world, like it or not. Would it kill them to be more co-operative?

Some comments to consider:

ďMost of Chicagoís media criticism was not malicious. If you make mistakes in running a team and things donít go right, the media and fans have to criticize. The only people I believe were unfair to us and carried personal vendettas were Harry Caray, Jimmy Piersall and Bill Gleason. I think the three of them made a personal thing of wanting us to fail. Other then that our coverage has been objective and honest.Ē Ė Jerry Reinsdorf . To Bob Logan. From the book Miracle On 35th Street. Pg. 143.

ďEddie and I never discussed how to talk to reporters. Weíve just been ourselves. I always though Jack Kennedy was the kind of person I looked up to in that regard. He always gave the media a fair shake and understood you guys have a job to do. Without responsible people willing to divulge some accurate information, itís hard to do it right. It was a much better approach then Nixon, who figured the media was his enemy. Doing it Kennedyís way just makes a lot more sense to me. After all, nobody can buy the kind of advertising Chicago teams get. What other line of work finds newspapers assigning people to follow you around and write about how the business is doing every day? At Balcor, we have to hire a public relations firm to get our names in the paper. When baseball teams get that for free, it makes sense to cooperate.Ē Ė Jerry Reinsdorf. To Bob Logan. From the book Miracle On 35th Street. Pg. 154.

"We've got to battle some of the outside forces that apparently surround the club with, quite honestly, much of the negativity that comes from the media, or the perception [of negativity]. For whatever the reason, it's out there. "Ė Kenny Williams . Chicago Tribune. February 22, 2002.

My how times and attitudes have changed.

Lip

pinwheels3530
04-26-2004, 11:33 AM
Mariotti column today was well thought out to make him look netural, but what was his point on Friday's column win the sox had just beating the Yanks, he rips the statue ceremony of Comsikey, rips the renovations, rips the attendance, rips the owner (deserved) rips sox fans,he thinks where irrelevent his column was negative for what reason haven't the sox been winning, he doesn't know his facts on the attendance issue check out my thread titled Tom Shaer who actually give unbiased commentary about the sox, he fails to mention that sox fans welcomed the renovations, what is his personal vendetta against Reisnsdorf can anyone explain what their falling out was. even when the sox are doing good he wants to rip the sox and their fans I don' understand why vodoo and palehose are ok with this.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-26-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by pinwheels3530
Mariotti column today was well thought out to make him look netural, but what was his point on Friday's column win the sox had just beating the Yanks, he rips the statue ceremony of Comsikey, rips the renovations, rips the attendance, rips the owner (deserved) rips sox fans,he thinks where irrelevent his column was negative for what reason haven't the sox been winning, he doesn't know his facts on the attendance issue check out my thread titled Tom Shaer who actually give unbiased commentary about the sox, he fails to mention that sox fans welcomed the renovations, what is his personal vendetta against Reisnsdorf can anyone explain what their falling out was. even when the sox are doing good he wants to rip the sox and their fans I don' understand why vodoo and palehose are ok with this.

I'm sure I speak for voodoo, too, when I state you are very confused to characterize our view of Marriotti's "rip behavior" as "okay."

An effective strategy for dealing with Marriotti's "rip behavior" is not what the Sox (and specificially Harrelson) are implementing. To the contrary, ripping Jay right back is counterproductive, and many others have already articulated many intelligent reasons why this fact cannot be denied.

But go ahead and applaud Harrelson. You haven't heard the last about this subject, and that's the proof why it was utterly stupid for him to start down this path in the first place.

jeremyb1
04-26-2004, 12:30 PM
This is the part that kills me:

the Cubs deserve all the local and national attention they're receiving this season. Isn't Wrigley Field packed with smitten fans every game, capable of selling out if they played at 4 a.m. in a thunderstorm? Aren't the starting pitchers dominating with scary regularity? Isn't the lineup so potent, we're beginning to think it's the best in 20 years in these parts?

The season isn't won based on 18 games. The Cubs do not have the 6th best offense in the major leagues. They will not hit .289 as a club this season just as Aramis Ramirez, a career .265 hitter who has never hit over .300 will not hit .347 and hit 54 home runs. Moises Alou probably won't hit the 63 he's on pace to either. I'm also willing to go on record betting against Michael Barrett finishing with a .327 season. To suggest the Cubs lineup is potent considering how wide a consensus there was prior to the season that their offense was weak is unacceptable. To suggest it's the strongest in the city in 20 years is abominable. It's not the best in town this season.

Maybe the Sox organization doesn't need to be the one's coming out and talking trash about horrible coverage like this but it needs to be done. I think just ignoring it and letting the winning take care of things is absurd. We got our 15 minutes that way in '00. A lot of good that did. If I was in the Chicago area you better believe I'd be complaining to my classmates or co-workers today about Mariotti's ability to put this propaganda in a major newspaper.

jeremyb1
04-26-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
But go ahead and applaud Harrelson. You haven't heard the last about this subject, and that's the proof why it was utterly stupid for him to start down this path in the first place.

Again, perhaps Haw isn't the right one to lash out but this attitude that we shouldn't awake the sleeping giant because we can't possibly win sickens me. "Lets not upset Mariotti, he's very powerful around these parts. We can't let him write negative columns about us." I don't really feel like there's anything Mariotti can do to make the situation worse. Do people really feel like we risk alienating a large market of non-die hard Sox fans that are or will end up coming out to the ballpark?

kittle42
04-26-2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
You know what is really funny and sad about watching White Sox management implode over their unfair treatment by the media? As a Sox Fan I'm left feeling like I'm rooting for the Nixon Administration.

I totally agree with you, PHG, despite being one of the many Cub-bashers here. I read the column. I listened to Mariotti and Jim Rome who talked about this today. The best thing the Sox can do as an organization, aside from sending JR to Antarctica, is to shut up and win.

I will take issue with one thing Rome said - he compared the Sox complaining about the Cubs to the Clippers complaining about the Lakers. Here's the difference - the Lakers win all the damn time. The Cubs and Sox have sucked for a century.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Do people really feel like we risk alienating a large market of non-die hard Sox fans that are or will end up coming out to the ballpark?

Yes - absolutely.

The reason the Cubs enjoy a popularity advantage over the White Sox is not primarily due to Mariotti (or anyone else in the press) - it's due to the way this team is run. To pound on the media is only to address a symptom, and avoids dealing with the problem. It appears as though this is what Reinsdorf is embarking upon, and I think it's the absolute wrong thing to do.

This team has to re-position itself in the eyes of the "non-die hards" - of that I have no doubt.

kittle42
04-26-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
The season isn't won based on 18 games.

Somebody tell that to the Red Sox and Yankee fans.

kittle42
04-26-2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Yes - absolutely.

The reason the Cubs enjoy a popularity advantage over the White Sox is not primarily due to Mariotti (or anyone else in the press) - it's due to the way this team is run. To pound on the media is only to address a symptom, and avoids dealing with the problem. It appears as though this is what Reinsdorf is embarking upon, and I think it's the absolute wrong thing to do.

This team has to re-position itself in the eyes of the "non-die hards" - of that I have no doubt.

This is exactly what 'ol Jay said on the radio this morning - Rome, too - and watch out because it may be the end of the world - they both were right!

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
This is exactly what 'ol Jay said on the radio this morning - Rome, too - and watch out because it may be the end of the world - they both were right!

Why was Jim Rome talking about the White Sox?

kittle42
04-26-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Why was Jim Rome talking about the White Sox?

He was talking about the whole Guillen "Prior Watch" thing.

jeremyb1
04-26-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Yes - absolutely.

The reason the Cubs enjoy a popularity advantage over the White Sox is not primarily due to Mariotti (or anyone else in the press) - it's due to the way this team is run. To pound on the media is only to address a symptom, and avoids dealing with the problem. It appears as though this is what Reinsdorf is embarking upon, and I think it's the absolute wrong thing to do.

This team has to re-position itself in the eyes of the "non-die hards" - of that I have no doubt.

Well first of all my point is do we have any non-die hards now? If not do we stand to gain them in the near future? In light of this "magical" Cubs season when them heavily favored to be a top NL team by the national media and the local media obsessing over them in a regular basis I don't feel like they're about to come over to our side anytime soon unless the Cub's somehow completely collapse this season.

More importantly your comments hinge on two assumptions that I don't think are true 1) Non-die hards perceive Hawk as a mouthpiece for JR and the organization 2) Non-die hards are aware of Hawk's comments. He's only talked about Mariotti a few times and it hasn't been reported in the media much. Marrioti's column failed to address Hawk's comments over the weekend.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-26-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Again, perhaps Haw isn't the right one to lash out but this attitude that we shouldn't awake the sleeping giant because we can't possibly win sickens me. "Lets not upset Mariotti, he's very powerful around these parts. We can't let him write negative columns about us." I don't really feel like there's anything Mariotti can do to make the situation worse. Do people really feel like we risk alienating a large market of non-die hard Sox fans that are or will end up coming out to the ballpark?

Okay. You claim you "don't really feel like there's anything Mariotti can do to make the situation worse" and yet Rome is now weighing in (taking Mariotti's side, of course) and Guillen is taken to task for similar whining about the media by a previously indifferent sportswriter, Rick Morrissey.

How many times must some of you have the evidence beaten over your head that the White Sox DON'T CONTROL THE MEDIA? Guillen and Harrelson complaining about it only makes it worse for everyone who supports the team.

The gulag Jerry Reinsdorf operates extends only as far as 35th and Shields. The sooner he and the rest of you understand this, the better off we'll all be.

joecrede
04-26-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Again, perhaps Haw isn't the right one to lash out but this attitude that we shouldn't awake the sleeping giant because we can't possibly win sickens me. "Lets not upset Mariotti, he's very powerful around these parts. We can't let him write negative columns about us." I don't really feel like there's anything Mariotti can do to make the situation worse. Do people really feel like we risk alienating a large market of non-die hard Sox fans that are or will end up coming out to the ballpark?

Best post ever on this topic IMO. Not much for me to say other than to reitterate Jeremy's point that the last guy the Sox should run scared of is Mariotti.

pinwheels3530
04-26-2004, 12:55 PM
So basically where suppose to do nothing about the lies he put's out there. The one I always hate is when he writes how bad the neighborhood is. I am a season ticket holder & I take my 5yr old with me to the game all the time and we feel safe. In fact I know Bridgeport is no different than any other city neighborhood, just because it's not party central like Lake View doen't make it bad, but this is his logic saying there is no bars their so it's bad and the sox are irrelevent. If you think we can't win the media war which you are probably right that's ok, but I am sticking up for the team I love.

kittle42
04-26-2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by pinwheels3530
So basically where suppose to do nothing about the lies he put's out there.

Can this win "Kittle42's Sentence of the Month" award? I could fill up half a day of a grade school English class with this one.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well first of all my point is do we have any non-die hards now? If not do we stand to gain them in the near future? In light of this "magical" Cubs season when them heavily favored to be a top NL team by the national media and the local media obsessing over them in a regular basis I don't feel like they're about to come over to our side anytime soon unless the Cub's somehow completely collapse this season.

More importantly your comments hinge on two assumptions that I don't think are true 1) Non-die hards perceive Hawk as a mouthpiece for JR and the organization 2) Non-die hards are aware of Hawk's comments. He's only talked about Mariotti a few times and it hasn't been reported in the media much. Marrioti's column failed to address Hawk's comments over the weekend.

I don't think non-die hards perceive Harrelson as a Reinsdorf lackey - at all. I think Harrelson has an extremely limited appeal to casual baseball watchers and fans - Getting a new announcer (which I'm in favor of - surprise ) does fix 100% of the problem, but it helps.

The problem with the White Sox organization goes a lot deeper than just Harrelson. IMO the organization is starting to get a reputation for being somewhat smug and even a bit arrogant in their proclamations that it is their fan-base who "truly know baseball" or "will support a good team - unlike up north" et al ad naseum I think that Guillen's comments were far worse than anything Harrelson said over the weekend.

If you would like to analyze these manifestations within the broadcast side of the business - I'll certainly be happy to have that discussion - but I was talking from an overall perspective.

If this organization starts appearing bitter/petty/jealous they are going to start dropping off the RADAR screens of those fans who just want to watch a baseball team, and the downward cycle with only get more and more intense.

Brian26
04-26-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
Can this win "Kittle42's Sentence of the Month" award? I could fill up half a day of a grade school English class with this one.

He's from Berwyn. Cut him some slack.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-26-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by pinwheels3530
So basically where suppose to do nothing about the lies he put's out there. The one I always hate is when he writes how bad the neighborhood is. I am a season ticket holder & I take my 5yr old with me to the game all the time and we feel safe. In fact I know Bridgeport is no different than any other city neighborhood, just because it's not party central like Lake View doen't make it bad, but this is his logic saying there is no bars their so it's bad and the sox are irrelevent. If you think we can't win the media war which you are probably right that's ok, but I am sticking up for the team I love.

*YOU* can do anything you want, including writing a letter to the Sun-Times or (as I've suggested) write to the advertisers whose ad dollars the Sun Times fears losing far more than your piddly subscription revenue.

The problem is when Reinsdorf's Gulag starts trying to control what the media writes. That's the only possible positive outcome Guillen or Harrelson could hope to achieve by *whining* about it.

I have no doubt Hawk and Ozzie have their jobs because they think just like Reinsdorf. Unfortunately Reinsdorf has *no clue* how to handle public relations, and this sorry episode is just the latest example of it.

Reinsdorf doesn't control the media, just the hired help who draw salaries at 35th & Shields. This isn't the Soviet Union. Reinsdorf isn't Soviet Premier and the Sun Times isn't Pravda.

faneidde
04-26-2004, 01:14 PM
This article, to me, was crap. All he did was praise the Cubs and slam the Sox. As much as that article upsets me, it's got me really looking forward to tomorow's game. I can't wait to hear what Hawk has to say.




:hawk
"Frank crushes it to left field. Way back, he looks up and you can shove it up your ass JJ Marriotti."

SEALgep
04-26-2004, 01:26 PM
It's interesting how we all complained about pretty much the same thing Hawk and Ozzie have complained about, yet when they do it, some people feel that they were stupid for doing so. It doesn't sound whiney to me, he was stating a simple fact. But a lot of people are missing what's going on. The media was forced to talk about the Sox. They try to portray it negatively, but you know that was going to happen. Either way though, they can't ignore our team. We're winning, and if we continue to and the Cubs stumble, well Ozzie won't look so stupid, IMO. They're not pressing the issue, Ozzie just said it, and that was that. Yet Baker says a ridiculous reply, and no one comments how stupid that was. This whole thing is stupid. Again, I give Ozzie credit for stepping up and at least letting us know that he understands what is going on and doesn't appreciate it.

woodenleg
04-26-2004, 01:46 PM
I agree. I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion. I mean, Mark Prior complained about the hype about his injury - are the White Sox not allowed to complain? It was very likely an off-the-cuff remark, probably prompted by some questions that were NOT reported. The newspapers are manipulating this into something bigger than it is. Big deal - I am very dismayed to see people over-reacting.

Also, I think that responding to inaccuracies is NOT 'controlling the media'. The Sox or their personnel have the right of reply as does any corporation or person. That IS freedom of speech.

SEALgep
04-26-2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by woodenleg
I agree. I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion. I mean, Mark Prior complained about the hype about his injury - are the White Sox not allowed to complain? It was very likely an off-the-cuff remark, probably prompted by some questions that were NOT reported. The newspapers are manipulating this into something bigger than it is. Big deal - I am very dismayed to see people over-reacting.

Also, I think that responding to inaccuracies is NOT 'controlling the media'. The Sox or their personnel have the right of reply as does any corporation or person. That IS freedom of speech. Exactly, I would be upset if the Sox didn't defend themselves.

Lip Man 1
04-26-2004, 01:56 PM
The best way for the Sox to 'defend themselves' short of getting a new owner is to win, win consistently and win big. (and I don't think that's possible under their self imposed payroll restraints....at least they haven't consistently won since the strike have they?)

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
04-26-2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Exactly, I would be upset if the Sox didn't defend themselves.

Seal, explain for the rest of us why you think this is a *positive* for the Sox and their fans for Hawk and Guillen to complain about media coverage. I've gone to great lengths to explain the negatives, apparently without convincing you.

Indulge the rest of us with your reasoning.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
It's interesting how we all complained about pretty much the same thing Hawk and Ozzie have complained about, yet when they do it, some people feel that they were stupid for doing so. It doesn't sound whiney to me, he was stating a simple fact. But a lot of people are missing what's going on. The media was forced to talk about the Sox. They try to portray it negatively, but you know that was going to happen. Either way though, they can't ignore our team. We're winning, and if we continue to and the Cubs stumble, well Ozzie won't look so stupid, IMO. They're not pressing the issue, Ozzie just said it, and that was that. Yet Baker says a ridiculous reply, and no one comments how stupid that was. This whole thing is stupid. Again, I give Ozzie credit for stepping up and at least letting us know that he understands what is going on and doesn't appreciate it.

As has been stated to death on these threads, it is far different for the fandom to engage in "Us versus Them", but when it becomes the strategic marketing platform taken on by management - good luck, especially in regards to matters involving the media.

woodenleg
04-26-2004, 02:26 PM
Is this a case of "marketing strategy" or some sort of "official policy" or is it just Ozzie giving his opinion (when prompted, no doubt) and defending Frank?

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by woodenleg
Is this a case of "marketing strategy" or some sort of "official policy" or is it just Ozzie giving his opinion (when prompted, no doubt) and defending Frank?

If it were an isolated incident - it's definitely the latter.

After about ten years of owners comments, announcers comments, billboards by WLUP and The Southtown which weren't run from - I have to consider it to be somewhat of policy....and a bad one in the long run. This is relative to the "Hey We're Not the Cubs" approach.

As far as "taking on the media" is concerned - the fact that Harrelson came screaming out of the blocks this year during spring training convinces me that this is an orchestrated effort.

The two are not independent of one another however.

jeremyb1
04-26-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Seal, explain for the rest of us why you think this is a *positive* for the Sox and their fans for Hawk and Guillen to complain about media coverage. I've gone to great lengths to explain the negatives, apparently without convincing you.

Indulge the rest of us with your reasoning.

Well I don't know. You've explained how the comments have apparently led to increasingly negative coverage from guys like Rome and Morrisey, but it doesn't automatically follow that that coverage will hurt the club and attendance.

First of all, it is possible that non-die hard fans don't follow sports closely enough to pay any attention to this coverage whatsoever. Additionally, I've said I think its possible that there aren't many so called "swing fans" trying to decide what team to support at this point in time. The Cubs have obviously won most of the casual fans and it would seem that any that were still on the fence would've been converted by the onslaught of national and local pro Cub coverage during the offseason. Finally, how about the notion that there is no such thing as bad publicity? Apparently this story has the garnered the Sox increased national coverage. Perhaps a lot of casual fans have never given serious consideration to the media's coverage of the two teams and will now be forced to think about it more in the future. Perhaps fans will listen to Rome, Mariotti, and Morrisey and determine that their arguments are terrible and Ozzie is right.

joecrede
04-26-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
As has been stated to death on these threads, it is far different for the fandom to engage in "Us versus Them", but when it becomes the strategic marketing platform taken on by management - good luck, especially in regards to matters involving the media.

Rush Limbaugh devolped an incredibly huge following using the "Us v. Them" stratagy with regards to the "liberal" media.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Finally, how about the notion that there is no such thing as bad publicity?

I have never agreed with this old bromide. There is such a thing as bad publicity - especially when you are trying to sell something, which is exactly the dynamic here.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Rush Limbaugh devolped an incredibly huge following using the "Us v. Them" stratagy with regards to the "liberal" media.

You should view Rush Limbaugh much as you do Jay Mariotti. It is their job to sell newspapers or commericial time, and they do so by creating controversy (e.g. "What is that guy going to say or write next?). In Limbaugh's case he has developed a very large audience by catering to a significant sub-group and telling them exactly what it is they want to hear, and in doing so he intentionally drives away potential listeners who have a leftward, centrist, or independant political thought. This portion of his potential listening audience which will never tune him in is HUGE, but that doesn't matter in radio where if 6% of the radios are tuned to you - then you are deemed an unqualified success.

If baseball were the same as talk radio (which it isn't) then this tact would make some sense. But baseball isn't that way. There are rabid Cub fans who would never go to a White Sox game - so you needn't woory about alienating this faction. There are rabid White Sox fans who would go to games regardless - so it's almost impossible to alienate these fans. And then there is the incredibly large percentage of fans who will make and break your profitability. The White Sox can not afford to alienate this group, yet they seem hellbent on doing it. If they alienate the media - this will only speed up the process.

jeremyb1
04-26-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I have never agreed with this old bromide. There is such a thing as bad publicity - especially when you are trying to sell something, which is exactly the dynamic here.

Well any way you cut it the Sox are getting more publicity and will get more attention from fans than before. Also the viewpoint that the media coverage is unfair is much more prevalent.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well any way you cut it the Sox are getting more publicity and will get more attention from fans than before. Also the viewpoint that the media coverage is unfair is much more prevalent.

I suspect they will get more attention from their "dyed in the wool" following, and less from the casual observers. That is where the problem lies. This type of approach is like "preaching to the choir" when what you should be doing is knocking on doors for a membership drive.

woodenleg
04-26-2004, 03:10 PM
Kenny Williams said this:

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: With a great deal of focus placed on Thomas this weekend, from his media silence to his treatment by the media, Williams was asked for his take on the respect surrounding Thomas' amazing accomplishments.

"When he was having MVP years, he absolutely was getting all the respect and attention across the nation that he deserved," Williams said. "But sports is cruel in the way that you are hot today and not tomorrow, judging by what you have done.

"There might be a little bit of a fall off the radar for him in the national scene, but I don't think the White Sox fans have forgotten about him or don't appreciate him. You hear it every time he comes up to the plate.

Yeah, it sure sounds like the White Sox as an organization are trying to antagonize the media.

KingXerxes
04-26-2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by woodenleg
Yeah, it sure sounds like the White Sox as an organization are trying to antagonize the media.

So what do you make of Harrelson's "calling out of the media"?

Everybody could bring up example after example trying to make their point, but that's a pointless exercise. I could just as easily say that Williams made his statement in order to afford plausible denial to Reinsdorf if he's ever cornered on the subject.

REPORTER #1:

"Do you think it's a good idea to be taking on the media?"

:reinsy

"Heck no - but we're not doing that. Why just the other day Kenny Williams was talking about how Frank Thomas has justifialby been somewhat ignored by the media."

REPORTER #2:

"So you think you get a fair shake?"

:reinsy

"Are you kidding, why just the other day Ozzie Guillen was pointing out the fact that there is no "Thomas-Watch" in the Tribune. We get screwed in this town."

You have to look at this in the whole. You may not agree with me, but let's not start trading tit for tat.

maurice
04-26-2004, 04:47 PM
It's impossible to get a "beat down" from a rhetorical weakling like Marriotti. With apologies to JR's bottom line, I'd really rather not watch live games with anybody who is mentally infirm enough to be persuaded by this loon.

TornLabrum
04-26-2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Okay. You claim you "don't really feel like there's anything Mariotti can do to make the situation worse" and yet Rome is now weighing in (taking Mariotti's side, of course) and Guillen is taken to task for similar whining about the media by a previously indifferent sportswriter, Rick Morrissey.

How many times must some of you have the evidence beaten over your head that the White Sox DON'T CONTROL THE MEDIA? Guillen and Harrelson complaining about it only makes it worse for everyone who supports the team.

The gulag Jerry Reinsdorf operates extends only as far as 35th and Shields. The sooner he and the rest of you understand this, the better off we'll all be.

The media are not going to allow anyone to attack one of their own. It's a tight little fraternity, and it's just like NATO, an attack on one is considered to be an attack on all. The Sox have put themselves in a no-win situation.

voodoochile
04-26-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by faneidde
This article, to me, was crap. All he did was praise the Cubs and slam the Sox. As much as that article upsets me, it's got me really looking forward to tomorow's game. I can't wait to hear what Hawk has to say.




:hawk
"Frank crushes it to left field. Way back, he looks up and you can shove it up your ass JJ Marriotti."

Please don't do that when I am drinking soda... :D:

Too funny, but still the wrong way to deal with it.

soxownthechubs
04-26-2004, 07:10 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but

"Isn't Wrigley Field packed with smitten fans every game, capable of selling out if they played at 4 a.m. in a thunderstorm?"

As long as they could see the ivy, park their BMW for under $100, and pretend not to be a bandwagon fan they would go, just like they do now, Jay Moronatti.

voodoochile
04-26-2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by soxownthechubs
Not to beat a dead horse, but

"Isn't Wrigley Field packed with smitten fans every game, capable of selling out if they played at 4 a.m. in a thunderstorm?"

As long as they could see the ivy, park their BMW for under $100, and pretend not to be a bandwagon fan they would go, just like they do now, Jay Moronatti.

Yeah, it would absolutely suck to have stupid rich people be willing to shell out huge dollars at off hours in horrid weather conditions to watch the Sox live

hose
04-26-2004, 07:24 PM
I don't watch Moronotti on tv or listen to him on the radio.

I was really surprised that a personal vendetta against Reinsy would take precedent over the Bears draft. The Bears are the biggest sports story in Chicago and to write a column bashing the Sox proves to me that Moronotti is only trying to promote himself .

I haven't bought a Sun-Times in a couple of years , but if reading it on line helps the Moron I'll stop doing that also.

guillen4life13
04-26-2004, 07:28 PM
I just sent an email to Jay. Let me know what you guys think and if this is a good way of not reinforcing the whiney sox fans stereotype while telling him what we think about this article (or what I think at least).

Jay,

I would like to say that I am a Sox fan, and no I am not angry or trying to blast you. I just think that you--and a lot of other Chicago writers and journalists--have taken Ozzie Guillen's comments out of context in many ways, or I interpreted them much differently from you.

I believe that Ozzie made the reference to the Chicago Tribune's Prior Watch as a way of saying, "Get over it." And, as you may expect, I do believe that Frank Thomas does not deserve the very negative reputation portrayed by the media. I don't think that Ozzie meant his comments to be interpreted as saying that there should be a Thomas Watch-- I think that would be plain stupid, as you seemingly do as well. I just think that so much fawning over Prior is somewhat unnecessary, and that Thomas is currently the sports icon in this city who deserves a lot more respect than he deserves. You have to admit that, if Thomas were to retire today, he would be a first ballot Hall of Famer, yet the media seems to always find what I think to be irrelevant things to blast him about. That is what Ozzie was trying to say, as I interpreted it.

I realize that there may be information or quotes of Ozzie's that you have that I don't that would clearly indicate that your interpretation of his words is closer to the mark, but I am basing my interpretations on what I've read.





Any thoughts?

joecrede
04-26-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
You should view Rush Limbaugh much as you do Jay Mariotti. It is their job to sell newspapers or commericial time, and they do so by creating controversy (e.g. "What is that guy going to say or write next?). In Limbaugh's case he has developed a very large audience by catering to a significant sub-group and telling them exactly what it is they want to hear, and in doing so he intentionally drives away potential listeners who have a leftward, centrist, or independant political thought. This portion of his potential listening audience which will never tune him in is HUGE, but that doesn't matter in radio where if 6% of the radios are tuned to you - then you are deemed an unqualified success.

If baseball were the same as talk radio (which it isn't) then this tact would make some sense. But baseball isn't that way. There are rabid Cub fans who would never go to a White Sox game - so you needn't woory about alienating this faction. There are rabid White Sox fans who would go to games regardless - so it's almost impossible to alienate these fans. And then there is the incredibly large percentage of fans who will make and break your profitability. The White Sox can not afford to alienate this group, yet they seem hellbent on doing it. If they alienate the media - this will only speed up the process.

Defending the franchise against Mariotti's obvious vendetta should be a matter of principal for those who are a part of it and should not be compromised by the limited downside to it.

voodoochile
04-26-2004, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Defending the franchise against Mariotti's obvious vendetta should be a matter of principal for those who are a part of it and should not be compromised by the limited downside to it.

Limited? Only because there is so little left to lose...

MRKARNO
04-26-2004, 07:32 PM
I hate how we must make big deals of really stupid things on off-days. I hate Mondays.
Maybe we could focus on the Twins vs Jays game as we're playing one of them starting thursday and the other one is our division rival?

joecrede
04-26-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Limited? Only because there is so little left to lose...

Right. Perhaps if Mariotti was called out 3-4 years ago there would be more "left to lose."

I think it would be wrong for the Sox to react to critical columns. Mariotti's vendetta goes well past that.

beckett21
04-26-2004, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I just sent an email to Jay. Let me know what you guys think and if this is a good way of not reinforcing the whiney sox fans stereotype while telling him what we think about this article (or what I think at least).

Jay,

I would like to say that I am a Sox fan, and no I am not angry or trying to blast you. I just think that you--and a lot of other Chicago writers and journalists--have taken Ozzie Guillen's comments out of context in many ways, or I interpreted them much differently from you.

I believe that Ozzie made the reference to the Chicago Tribune's Prior Watch as a way of saying, "Get over it." And, as you may expect, I do believe that Frank Thomas does not deserve the very negative reputation portrayed by the media. I don't think that Ozzie meant his comments to be interpreted as saying that there should be a Thomas Watch-- I think that would be plain stupid, as you seemingly do as well. I just think that so much fawning over Prior is somewhat unnecessary, and that Thomas is currently the sports icon in this city who deserves a lot more respect than he deserves. You have to admit that, if Thomas were to retire today, he would be a first ballot Hall of Famer, yet the media seems to always find what I think to be irrelevant things to blast him about. That is what Ozzie was trying to say, as I interpreted it.

I realize that there may be information or quotes of Ozzie's that you have that I don't that would clearly indicate that your interpretation of his words is closer to the mark, but I am basing my interpretations on what I've read.





Any thoughts?

Yes, I have a thought. He will either find a way to ridicule you or won't even bother to respond.

Logic will not make any difference; the man is not going to change his mind. He's found his meal-ticket and he's gonna run with it for as far as it will carry him. These types feed off controversy. All it means is more money for him.

For all the well-intentioned defense of the Sox's honor, I have to agree with those that say this is not a winnable war. Not saying it's not worth fighting for, people can obviously do what they want. Honestly does anyone think that they are going to open Jay's eyes, like he is going to have some great revelation?? It would be just as easy as turning most of us into Cub fans. Read: it ain't gonna happen.

Ignoring that windbag would be the best course of action in my opinion. When people stop talking about him, his 15 minutes will be up.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-26-2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Right. Perhaps if Mariotti was called out 3-4 years ago there would be more "left to lose."

I think it would be wrong for the Sox to react to critical columns. Mariotti's vendetta goes well past that.

Gee, imagine if Reinsdorf had the foresight to buy the Sun Times along with the Sox back in 1981! I'm guessing everything would be coming up clover by now.

What Chicago needs is a good dose of totalitarianism. Ah, for the good ol' days. :smile:

:hizzoner
"Gentlemen, there is always mistletoe hanging from my coattail."

:reinsy
"Yeah, what he said!"

voodoochile
04-26-2004, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Right. Perhaps if Mariotti was called out 3-4 years ago there would be more "left to lose."

I think it would be wrong for the Sox to react to critical columns. Mariotti's vendetta goes well past that.

Yeah, and if JR had sold after the 93 season, none of this would be going on or matter.

You are closing the barn door, but JR sold the damned horse almost a decade ago.

:reinsy
"Got several cans of Alpo for that purebred racing stallion I was raising. How can you argue with a deal like that?"

ode to veeck
04-26-2004, 08:09 PM
I don't know that even the late great Richard J woulda had that much influence over the newspapers in Chicago.

On the other hand, maybe "Littie Ritchie" (I'lll bet no one calls him that these days) could get a lot more press and mileage outta restating the obvious (like what Ozzie said) in a few very public forums. As the leading Chiacgo politician, he can't very well slam the Cubs, but he can slam the press for lack of coverage of his beloved Sox---maybe we ought to write him a letter.

Frater Perdurabo
04-26-2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's the obvious first step, but it isn't nearly enough.

You want to get their attention? Pick up the Sun-Times and start calling all their advertisers. Tell them how upset you are that they help support a Chicago media institution (the Sun-Times) that is so obviously attempting to throw another Chicago institution (the White Sox) under the wheels of a train.

Note the unobjectivity of the paper's leading sports columnist, his flippant replies to concerns many like you have brought to his attention, and the complete disregard the editor and publisher of the Sun Times have for this issue.

Most of all, note that you're a Chicagoan, and what advertisers like those in the Sun-Times are doing is reprehensible to rip this city apart in an transparent attempt to merely sell a few more rags. You won't support the Sun Times, and you won't support their store/business.

If you have an account (credit card or otherwise) with one of these businesses, tear it up and enclose it with your letter.

Now *that's* effective.

AMEN!!!!!

Viva Magglio
04-26-2004, 09:49 PM
I read the Moronotti column today at work, and I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw the comments linking Mark Prior to "baseball history." Regardless of the shortcomings of the Reinsdorf administration, I think Ozzie is right to call out the media on the preferential treatment it gives the Cubs.

Mariotti's column was yet another slap at Ozzie and the White Sox for having the audacity to say something negative about Holy Mother Cubdom. If Dusty Baker made disparaging comments about the White Sox, the very same media types ripping Ozzie would giggle like the little girls many of them are at Baker's comments. Guillen is definitely the victim of a double standard here.

I am of the opinion that the media should be called out for their biased coverage. What disturbed me this morning was reading that Kenny Williams visited Baker on Sunday. To me, it was an obvious reaction to what Ozzie had been saying. Why the hell are we kowtowing to these guys? I don't care what impact comments made will have upon the games we play against them. What will happen will happen anyway.

TornLabrum
04-26-2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Viva Magglio


Mariotti's column was yet another slap at Ozzie and the White Sox for having the audacity to say something negative about Holy Mother Cubdom. If Dusty Baker made disparaging comments about the White Sox, the very same media types ripping Ozzie would giggle like the little girls many of them are at Baker's comments. Guillen is definitely the victim of a double standard here.

It has nothing to do with a slap at the Cubs. It has everything to do with the slap he took at the media for blowing all of this Cubs BS out of proportion. The Sox have declared war on the media, and the media (Rick Telander, Jay Mariotti, Rick Morrisey, Chris DeLuca, et al.) are defending their turf.

These guys are going to get the last word because they have the word processors and will band together to defend their own, no matter which outlet they work for.

kojak
04-27-2004, 12:08 AM
This may be the most self-serving piece of dreck I have ever seen. I read Moronotti regularly because there is not much choice here in California. About a week ago, I emailed him noting he had not written about the Sox since spring training had started and based on their performance, perhaps he could refrain from further articles on my Sox, thank you. He never responds, but the very next day he did his little Big Skirt rant.

This guy is a shrill spew-piece and I lose respect for him with each word he writes. I don't think I will be reading any more of his lameness. Thank God I don't have to hear his radio show. He probably makes Jimmy Shorts sound like Bob Costas.

fusillirob1983
04-30-2004, 12:32 AM
Personally, I'm not too worried about the whole media battle between the Sox and the Tribune/Sun-Times writers. Remember when there was that article about Frank and his contract? That's not even brought up any more in the papers since they're talking about Ozzie's comments. I think Ozzie knows what he's doing.

WhiteSox = Life
04-30-2004, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by fusillirob1983
Personally, I'm not too worried about the whole media battle between the Sox and the Tribune/Sun-Times writers. Remember when there was that article about Frank and his contract? That's not even brought up any more in the papers since they're talking about Ozzie's comments. I think Ozzie knows what he's doing.

Mmm... Enjoy your stay at WSI.

:smile:

white sox bill
04-30-2004, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by zach23
The best thing to do is stop reading their paper. Cancel any subscriptions and tell them why you are cancelling.

Yea that and how 'bout boycotting any advertisers business? And of course, writting them and telling them why